M/S Valdel Engineers and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50763 WP No. 2341 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2341 OF 2022 (T-IT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S VALDEL ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M.J. SHANTHARAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OFFICE AT THE RESIDENCY 133 AND 133/1, 5^TH FLOOR RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE 560 025.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP BY ITS CHAIRPERSON MINISTRY OF FINANCE,

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK

¶14

NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DTD.7.7.2021 REFERRED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:50763 WP No. 2341 of 2022

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 07.07.2021 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 333 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2018-19 was rejected by respondent No.1.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2018-19, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 333 days in filing the returns interalia contending that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50763 WP No. 2341 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

09.06.2015 and as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T Act, which deserves to be set aside.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentsRevenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted a hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner / assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:50763 WP No. 2341 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶38

Under these circumstances, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of its claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner.

¶39

In the result, I pass the following:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶42

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 07.07.2021 is hereby set-aside;

¶43

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 333 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2018-19, is hereby allowed;

¶44